Opinion 23-131

Short-Form Opinion

October 24, 2023

Question:  Earlier in the year, the local district attorney’s office and a local police department investigated and detained one first-degree relative of the inquiring judge (Relative A) in connection with the death of another first-degree relative of the judge (Relative B).[1]  Relative A has been released without charges, and the matter was transferred to a prosecutorial office in another jurisdiction.  No arrests have been made, and no charges are pending, in connection with Relative B’s death.

                 The judge is confident in his/her ability to be fair and impartial in matters involving the police department and the local district attorney’s office, but has already decided to disqualify from any matters “handled directly” by those who headed the investigation, specifically (1) the chief of the relevant bureau of the local district attorney’s office and (2) the local police department’s lead investigator on the matter.

                 The judge asks, in effect, if it is necessary to disclose or disqualify in other matters involving the local district attorney’s office and the police department. 

Discussion: We conclude the judge’s impartiality cannot “reasonably be questioned” when other assistant district attorneys or other police officers from those offices appear, provided the judge can be fair and impartial.  Accordingly, the facts presented do not require the inquiring judge to disclose or disqualify in other matters beyond what the judge already plans to do, and the judge remains the “sole arbiter of recusal” (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]).

Enclosed:   Opinions 20-25; 15-35/15-75.

---

[1] Relatives within the first degree of relationship include the judge’s spouse, the parent or child of the judge or their spouse, or the spouse of such person.